In the Spirit: Catholic diocese changes process for baptism of children of same-sex couples

[seakelp]

And how could that be possible when the teaching of the Church prohibits gay cohabitation and doesn’t recognize gay marriages ?

It may be possible, but not probable.

Jim

It’s not a question of being “probable.”

The CIC is clear: “2/ there must be a founded hope that the infant will be brought up in the Catholic religion; if such hope is altogether lacking, the baptism is to be delayed according to the prescripts of particular law after the parents have been advised about the reason.”

It cannot possibly be fairly said that just because a couple is homosexual there is altogether NO hope that the child will be brought up as Catholic.

 

[styrgwillidar]

1. We should treat all sexual sin the same. A gay couple, an unmarried couple, or a divorced couple stand in the same position. While the unmarried couple may wed, and the divorced couple may reunite, in the present moment their positions are completely identical. Additionally, the hope that these couples will cease to persist in their sin is dependent on each couple’s unique circumstances, divorced from whatever species of sin they are engaged in. A gay couple that is seriously pursuing reconciliation with the Church and working to reform their lives to live in accord with God’s law inspires more hope for their future in the Church than a divorced, heterosexual couple that has no interest in changing their ways.

Thus,

2. We should not categorically place limitations on certain classes of people. To say to a homosexual couple, “Your child’s future in the Church is more questionable than an unmarried heterosexual couple’s child’s future,” unfairly assumes that heterosexual couples have a better chance of reform than a homosexual couple.

Thus,

3. The individual parish priest should be the one to make a decision regarding the administration of the Sacraments to individuals. If we know that categorically assuming one type of sinner is less likely than some other to change their ways, we should necessarily look to the individual circumstances of the couple. Who is in the best position to undertake that type of analysis? Obviously, the individual parish priest. He will know where the couple is spiritually, how and to what extent the couple is attempting to move beyond their sinfulness, and so forth.

Therefore, I would suggest that this diocese’s plans are at least ill-advised, and at worse, going to push more people away from the Church unnecessarily.

Well as a divorced man whose children live with him full time, I take a bit of an issue with divorce in your assesment as it is a bit more complicated, divorce is not always in and of itself sinful. And in fact, in states with no-fault divorce it is outside the control of at least one party. Where I would agree with you is, and I actually have quite a few kids in this situation teaching CCD, couples who have divorced and remarried without getting an annulment. I teach 7th grade and cover matrimony- so the kids hear the church’s teaching while seeing the parent/step-parent living in contradiction to it.

I think whether it pushes folks away from the Church will be based on how the diocese handles it. If in fact, the diocese works towards standardization with an emphasis on Christ’s mercy and the best interest of the child it may actually be helpful. One couple wondering why they were denied in one parish while another couple was able to have their child baptized. I think it does help when people believe they are being treated equitably and fairly.

The Church pews are full of sinners. We’re all sinners of various sorts and we want the sinners in the pews, hearing God’s message, still feeling part of the community and hopefully making the decision to live in accordance with the Church’s teaching. Christ came for the sinners and spent His time amongst them.

I can see the concern about creating scandal by appearing to condone/approve the relationship-- but I think that can be countered through baptism classes, and administration of the sacrament emphasizing the need to raise the child in accordance with the faith. My quandry, and I tend to side with baptizing the child is, is if this opportunity to baptize the child is missed— will the child ever be baptized? Or, will the child end up being baptized into another faith which teaches things in contradiction to the Church? I think it more likely at least that the child will in the future be exposed to Catholic teaching if their baptism is within the Church.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

Back to the article in the OP. I believe the Dioceses is putting this mandate because of the lawsuits that will come, when one priest Baptizes the child of a gay couple, while another refuses.

The dioceses wants a constant policy in administering the Sacrament, but they should be doing this for all couples seeking to Baptize their children.

Jim

 

[LongingSoul]

It’s definitely not correct - the faith of the parents is not at issue at all. The only qualification in the Code of Canon Law states that there must be a “founded hope” the child will be brought up in the Catholic religion.

Typically, of course, this will depend on the parents’ own faith. But we can imagine scenarios wherein a parent may agree to raise their child as a Catholic but may not be a Catholic themselves.

Yes, as a sign of intention, when my Grandparents moved closer to a bigger township they sent the children to Catholic schools. My father was educated Catholic in that way even though he didn’t realise he was Catholic.

 

[seakelp]

Well as a divorced man whose children live with him full time, I take a bit of an issue with divorce in your assesment as it is a bit more complicated, divorce is not always in and of itself sinful.

styrgwillidar, I’m sorry you took offense - I did not mean to insult you. My point is merely that there are many, many situations similar to that of a homosexual couple raising a child. These situations, while common and from the standpoint of the CIC indistinguishable from that of a homosexual couple, are not selected for “special attention” by the diocese.

My point is that what is going on here is pure animus towards homosexuals and homosexual couples that I believe is uncharitable and decidedly unhelpful.

I do not disagree with the Church with regard to her teachings on sexual morality when it comes to homosexuality. I do disagree with this diocese method of addressing the problem of one particular subset of sexual immorality.

And in fact, in states with no-fault divorce it is outside the control of at least one party. Where I would agree with you is, and I actually have quite a few kids in this situation teaching CCD, couples who have divorced and remarried without getting an annulment. I teach 7th grade and cover matrimony- so the kids hear the church’s teaching while seeing the parent/step-parent living in contradiction to it.

Absolutely. When I said, “divorced couples,” I meant to imply, divorced couples who have not received an annulment from the Church. Obviously, individuals who have had a marriage annulled by a tribunal and are remarried are completely different. That’s my fault, I should have been more clear.

I think whether it pushes folks away from the Church will be based on how the diocese handles it. If in fact, the diocese works towards standardization with an emphasis on Christ’s mercy and the best interest of the child it may actually be helpful. One couple wondering why they were denied in one parish while another couple was able to have their child baptized. I think it does help when people believe they are being treated equitably and fairly.

I do understand the logic of this. At the same time, I think uniformity and fairness could be more easily achieved by instructing priests more directly on the requirements for baptism that are outlined in the CIC and the Catechism.

The Church pews are full of sinners. We’re all sinners of various sorts and we want the sinners in the pews, hearing God’s message, still feeling part of the community and hopefully making the decision to live in accordance with the Church’s teaching. Christ came for the sinners and spent His time amongst them.

Very true!

I can see the concern about creating scandal by appearing to condone/approve the relationship-- but I think that can be countered through baptism classes, and administration of the sacrament emphasizing the need to raise the child in accordance with the faith. My quandry, and I tend to side with baptizing the child is, is if this opportunity to baptize the child is missed— will the child ever be baptized? Or, will the child end up being baptized into another faith which teaches things in contradiction to the Church? I think it more likely at least that the child will in the future be exposed to Catholic teaching if their baptism is within the Church.

I understand this as well. A church or diocese shouldn’t suggest that it condones sin. But what it also shouldn’t do is build walls that separate some sinners from others.

And I completely agree, and you are pointing out something that is missing from the conversation: the salvation of the child. Baptism is necessary for salvation. That’s why it may only be denied when there is literally zero hope that the child will be raised as a Catholic.

Why would that hope be particularly extinguished for homosexuals? That’s what no one in this thread can explain sufficiently, in my opinion.

 

[JimG]

The question in my mind is this: Can a couple in a gay marriage really have an intention to raise their child Catholic? How can they, unless they also have an intention to cease living as a gay couple?

The same question would arise if a child of a polygamous marriage desired baptism for their child? They intend to raise the child in the Catholic Faith? Really?

And how would a gay couple whose child is baptized deal with the publicity which would inevitably follow, trumpeting the fact that even the Catholic Church is now caving in on same sex marriage? They would become a cause célèbre. Would they be willing to fight for Catholic doctrine over gay doctrine?

 

[seakelp]

The question in my mind is this: Can a couple in a gay marriage really have an intention to raise their child Catholic? How can they, unless they also have an intention to cease living as a gay couple?

The same question would arise if a child of a polygamous marriage desired baptism for their child? They intend to raise the child in the Catholic Faith? Really?

And how would a gay couple whose child is baptized deal with the publicity which would inevitably follow, trumpeting the fact that even the Catholic Church is now caving in on same sex marriage? They would become a cause célèbre. Would they be willing to fight for Catholic doctrine over gay doctrine?

As I’ve stated a few times, the question is whether there hope is “altogether lacking” when it comes to the child being raised as a Catholic.

There are numerous faithful homosexual Catholics. The real question is, why do you think that homosexuals in particular are incapable of raising children in the Church? Or do you think that anyone in a non-marital relationship should be given the same scrutiny?

 

[JimG]

As I’ve stated a few times, the question is whether there hope is “altogether lacking” when it comes to the child being raised as a Catholic.

There are numerous faithful homosexual Catholics. The real question is, why do you think that homosexuals in particular are incapable of raising children in the Church? Or do you think that anyone in a non-marital relationship should be given the same scrutiny?

Of course that are faithful homosexual Catholics. If they choose to marry a person of the same sex, they have violated both the Church’s marriage law, and the natural law. At that point are they still faithful Catholics or have they rejected Catholicism?

 

[seakelp]

Of course that are faithful homosexual Catholics. If they choose to marry a person of the same sex, they have violated both the Church’s marriage law, and the natural law. At that point are they still faithful Catholics or have they rejected Catholicism?

That’s not a question I can answer.

If a man and woman are married in the Church, get a divorce, and the man remarries in violation of the Church’s marriage law and the natural law, at what point are they still faithful Catholics or have they rejected Catholicism?

The answer is, it depends and that it is irrelevant as to the hope that the child will be raised Catholic. As another poster here pointed out, many people may themselves not be Catholic, but they wish to raise their children in the Church for whatever reason.

The individual priest is likely in a far better position to make a determination of whether there is no hope the child will be raised Catholic on a case by case basis, rather than the diocese. The priest would (hopefully) know more fully the particular situation of a given couple.

 

[manualman]

Actually, a divorced and remarried couple can not receive the Sacraments and they too should not be able to have their child Baptized.

Jim,

I assume you are referring above to a child below the age of reason. An older child able and capable of desiring and requesting baptism him/herself should be no problem, no?

 

[LongingSoul]

The question in my mind is this: Can a couple in a gay marriage really have an intention to raise their child Catholic? How can they, unless they also have an intention to cease living as a gay couple?

The same question would arise if a child of a polygamous marriage desired baptism for their child? They intend to raise the child in the Catholic Faith? Really?

And how would a gay couple whose child is baptized deal with the publicity which would inevitably follow, trumpeting the fact that even the Catholic Church is now caving in on same sex marriage? They would become a cause célèbre. Would they be willing to fight for Catholic doctrine over gay doctrine?

Ideally, this is why the sponser (godparent) is the most significant adult present at the childs baptism. While it is not necessary for a parent to even be Catholic, it is critical that the childs sponser is Catholic and intends to either assist the parents or play a role for the child in imparting faith.

 

[JimG]

Ideally, this is why the sponser (godparent) is the most significant adult present at the childs baptism. While it is not necessary for a parent to even be Catholic, it is critical that the childs sponser is Catholic and intends to either assist the parents or play a role for the child in imparting faith.

That is the hope, but it is an illusion. I mentioned before being godparent to a nephew’s child. The nephew did not and does not go to Church at all. The mother is not living with him and has no interest in Catholicism. The child is off at school in a different city. Is it now my job to ensure that a child whom I have no contact with and who lives hundreds of miles away must be raised Catholic? It is impossible, and it is an impossible burden to ask of a godparent, knowing that the parents have no intention of raising a child Catholic.

Even the priest who baptized the child acknowledged this at the interview. When I gave him this standard definition of a godparent, he said, “Yes, but that’s really impossible, isn’t it?”

 

[LongingSoul]

That is the hope, but it is an illusion. I mentioned before being godparent to a nephew’s child. The nephew did not and does not go to Church at all. The mother is not living with him and has no interest in Catholicism. The child is off at school in a different city. Is it now my job to ensure that a child whom I have no contact with and who lives hundreds of miles away must be raised Catholic? It is impossible, and it is an impossible burden to ask of a godparent, knowing that the parents have no intention of raising a child Catholic.

Even the priest who baptized the child acknowledged this at the interview. When I gave him this standard definition of a godparent, he said, “Yes, but that’s really impossible, isn’t it?”

As the childs godparent/sponser, you are to pray specifically for the faith of the child without needing to have contact with him.

We have to understand our limitations as human beings in controlling others. Many years ago in Melbourne, homosexuals took issue with one of our wonderful (now renowned) Cardinals and his forthright stance on Catholic doctrine. They started going to Masses he was celebrating and going to Communion. He would give them Communion and get on with it. So then they declared they were going to wear rainbow shawls up to Communion to signify that they were practicing homosexuals and unrepentant. The Cardinal was then able to deny Communion and they got the big woohaa in the media they were aiming for.

The point is that unless someone at the moment of receiving the sacrament is declaring their defiant sinfulness… how is a Priest or anyone to know what is in their heart or even if prior to the event they were reconciled to God in reconciliation.

If the gay couple ask a Catholic representative to be godparent, somewhere in there there is a reasonable possibility that the seeds of good intention exist. How are we to judge the quality of that intent other then if it is explicitly declared in defiance to the Priest?

Our good faith in and prayers for the potential of others should be limitless. If the Church with her knowledge of Canon Law and faith in Gods grace and mercy, baptises these children… who are we to question that?

 

[manualman]

That canon law is what specifically calls for there to be a reasonable expectation that the child will be raised in the catholic faith.

This is the rational basis upon which we do NOT condone stealthily baptizing the atheist neighbor’s kids when babysitting them! Baptism is not some shamanistic magic. It is the gift of God given in trust (in the case of young children) that the parents desire and will their children to receive and embrace the faith. When and if there is no reasonable expectation for that to happen, canon law directs that the baby NOT be baptized.

 

[sttcatherinefan]

Rather than responding to replies to my posts one by one, I’m just going to do one big post with some observations. I agree with seakelp and think that priests should err on the side of baptizing children. I think that this is likely to come at the Synod and that the Synod will come down in favor of the child’s right to be baptized. The sins of the parents shouldn’t be visited on the children.

As for specific objections, here are as follows.

1. Yes, gay couples can be in sexual relationships and still consider themselves practicing Catholics. There are lots of straight couples who also consider themselves practicing Catholics and ignore certain things. I heard about 80% to 90% of Catholic women use contraception and these couples still consider themselves good Catholics. Most Catholics, including regular Mass goers, don’t bother with Confession and still receive Communion. And A&P Catholics don’t think anything about receiving Communion at Christmas and Easter. So I’m not sure exactly why gay couples are singled out as “bad Catholics.”
2. No, being in a gay doesn’t mean that you cannot form long-term meaningful relationships or raise kids. I do think that kids benefit from having male and female role models, but everything is relative. I’d prefer that a child be adopted by an upper middle class gay couple than be raised by a fifteen year old prostitute or languish in a foreign orphanage. You?
3. The likelihood of the child getting baptized if the Church refuses to baptize him or her as a baby is next to nil. It takes lots of time and effort for an adult or even an older child to get baptized in the Church. If the priest decides not to baptize the child, then he is probably losing that child to the faith forever.
4. The likelihood of the parents remaining with the Church if the priest refuses to baptize the baby is next to nil. In my opinion, a child’s baptism is a time to welcome parents to the community and evangelize them. The parents are taking the step to get a child baptized which suggests a desire to reconnect with the Catholic faith and that flame will be extinguished if the priest is rough or cruel with the parents.

 

[JimG]

That canon law is what specifically calls for there to be a reasonable expectation that the child will be raised in the catholic faith.

This is the rational basis upon which we do NOT condone stealthily baptizing the atheist neighbor’s kids when babysitting them! Baptism is not some shamanistic magic. It is the gift of God given in trust (in the case of young children) that the parents desire and will their children to receive and embrace the faith. When and if there is no reasonable expectation for that to happen, canon law directs that the baby NOT be baptized.

Yes, and it seems it would probably not be that difficult for a priest interviewing a parent or parents for a baptism to determine their intent to raise the child in the Catholic Faith. In the case of a civilly married gay couple, do they intend to turn away from their living arrangement in order to raise the child in the Catholic Faith without giving bad example.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

Jim,

I assume you are referring above to a child below the age of reason. An older child able and capable of desiring and requesting baptism him/herself should be no problem, no?

Correct, before the age of reason, the child is Baptized through the faith of their parents.

After the age of reason, Baptism is through their own faith.

Jim

 

[JimG]

To the extent that parents egregiously, publicly, and unrepentantly, flout the moral law, the sins of the parents will most assuredly be visited upon the children. It’s powerful parental influence, for good or bad.

What do parents desire for their children when they desire baptism? An empty ceremony whose promise will be fulfilled only if the child can overcome their own bad example? A nominal approval of the Church for their own lifestyle?

Or do they wish for the child to be incorporated into the life of Christ and into the Church which is the barque of Peter? If they desire this, they cannot escape their responsibility to impart the Faith, without qualifications.

 

[Tigg]

To the extent that parents egregiously, publicly, and unrepentantly, flout the moral law, the sins of the parents will most assuredly be visited upon the children. **It’s powerful parental influence, for good or bad. **

What do parents desire for their children when they desire baptism? An empty ceremony whose promise will be fulfilled only if the child can overcome their own bad example? A nominal approval of the Church for their own lifestyle?

Or do they wish for the child to be incorporated into the life of Christ and into the Church which is the barque of Peter? ** If they desire this, they cannot escape their responsibility to impart the Faith, without qualifications.**

This is a great post and succinctly identifies the issue. Children are not dumb and understand far more than what is usually credited to them. What is the subtle undertone of living in a home of a ss couple? What do these children see with their eyes and what message enters their spirit? From an emotional, psychological and spiritual aspect these kids will have much to sort through in their childhood and in later life. Lord, have mercy!

 

[LongingSoul]

This is a great post and succinctly identifies the issue. Children are not dumb and understand far more than what is usually credited to them. What is the subtle undertone of living in a home of a ss couple? What do these children see with their eyes and what message enters their spirit? From an emotional, psychological and spiritual aspect these kids will have much to sort through in their childhood and in later life. Lord, have mercy!

But the point is that that issue would be more relevant to the Protestant view of baptism of the child which sees it as a mere representation of some effect. The Catholic view of baptism is that we are *literally transformed *by the sacrament itself… apart from the outside influences on us.

Here is the teaching tract from CA on Baptismal grace…

Few truths are so clearly taught in the New Testament as the doctrine that in baptism God gives us grace. Again and again the sacred writers tell us that it is in baptism that we are saved, buried with Christ, incorporated into his body, washed of our sins, regenerated, cleansed, and so on (see Acts 2:38, 22:16; Rom. 6:1–4; 1 Cor. 6:11, 12:13; Gal. 3:26–27; Eph. 5:25-27; Col. 2:11–12; Titus 3:5; 1 Pet. 3:18–22). They are unanimous in speaking of baptism in invariably efficient terms, as really bringing about a spiritual effect.

Despite this wealth of evidence, Protestants are almost equally unanimous in rejecting this truth. In general Protestants regard baptism as something like an ordinance: an observance that does not itself bring about any spiritual effect but merely represents that effect. Its observance may be required by obedience, but it is not necessary in any further sense—certainly not for salvation.

This view requires Protestants to explain away all the New Testament passages on the nature of baptism as figurative language. It is not baptism itself, they assert, but what baptism represents,that really saves us. Yet the language of the New Testament on this point is so uniform that they cannot even dredge up a couple of “proof-texts” on baptism to support this view or their figurative reading of all the other passages.

catholic.com/tracts/baptismal-grace